Vulnerable student voices are a matter for concern in contemporary higher education, but that concern is directed more towards identifying vulnerable groups, and seeking to widen their participation in higher education. It is less to do with the vulnerability of certain modes of voice when students are there. The concept of student voice may be anatomised into three constituent elements: an epistemological voice, or a voice for knowing, a practical voice, or a voice for doing, and an ontological voice, or (...) a voice for being and becoming. A voice for being and becoming is less valued and validated in contemporary higher education, and more vulnerable, than voices for knowing and doing. Developing an ontological voice is deemed less important than developing epistemological or practical voices, yet an ontological voice is fundamental to those two other voices. The concept of vulnerability needs to be extended from referring to certain under‐represented groups in the student body to indicating the strength or weakness of certain modes of the student voice. Vulnerability is not only about the vulnerability of the presenting student, but also about his voice yet to be uncovered. Reinterpreting vulnerability fosters modes of recovering ontological voices at risk of being lost. (shrink)